Running header: Just War Theory

The Just War Theory Regarding the War on Terrorism

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Abstract

The modern interpretation of the Just War Theory list seven conditions which must met in order for a war to be considered “Just” (jus ad bellum). This paper demonstrates that, while it has been suggested that all wars, even the current war on terrorism, are unjust, the facts remain that any war that meets each of the seven criteria is a just war, regardless of opinion.

Throughout the ages man has always looked to bring about the end of war, or when war has been waged to minimize the destruction caused when nations war. According to the text;”these rules were worked out in the late Middle Ages by the so-called Schoolmen or Scholars, building on the Roman law and early Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Ambrose. (The Moral of the Story, 2006) These rules were developed to first, deter wars, but when determined necessary, to limit the scope and suffering from the war. While not completely universal in scope, most advanced western societies have embraced the theory of just war as a bases for determining when, and if, a war is justified. As set forth by the Schoolmen, there are seven criteria that must be considered and met before nations can engage in war. They are; the Last Resort, a Just Cause, a Legitimate, Competent Authority, Comparative Justice, Right Intention, Probability of Success, and Proportionality of Ends. We will examine each of these in the following paragraphs.

The first of these criteria that needs to be met in order to justify war is that the war is a Last Resort. Meaning, all other options have been exhausted, all other means satisfied, before declaring war. A war can be fought only if there is no other option that seems reasonable or practical. It must be considered the last moral option and peace must be the goal. According to our book, last resort is defined as this, “a war can be just only if all other ways of restoring peace have been exhausted, such as negotiations, economic sanctions, etc.” (The Moral of the Story, 2006).

Another, just as important “rule” for justification of war is that there is just cause for that war to be started, or entered into. The appropriate definition of this is given by our book, and states that if the only way that a country can defend its values and lives of its innocent citizens against aggression and restoring peace, then the cause for going to war is completely just. We agree with this definition and feel that is appropriate for its application when defining “just war.” Of course, there will be opponents of war regardless of why we are in it, or however we try to justify our involvement. But with the proper conditions being met, the justification for war is there.

A seemingly practical device of Just War theory is legitimate authority. Because legitimate authority, at least in the modern world, means primarily states or the representatives of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (allacademic2009). Only members of these organizations can “legitimately” go to war as a result, the impression of an authentic authority buttresses not only the entire international system of independent states as we have it today, but also legitimates the domestic beliefs within states. In spirit, legitimate authority is a sensible tool labeling internal threats to the state, regardless of their popular appeal, as illegitimate. As a result, groups that might be real “freedom fighters” i.e. the Chechens, and the Kurds are likely to be branded as guerrillas, insurgents, rebels, or terrorists. In addition, the call by most Just War theorists for a formal declaration of hostilities reifies the nature of the system. While there may be some ethical value in not surprising your enemy’s army, if that is even possible in contemporary warfare, nonetheless formal declarations of war are really the centerpiece of a legalistic standard that defines war as the legitimate enterprise of states only. Two other jus ad bellum tenets are essentially the cost and benefit analyses. The injunction to consider the likelihood of success suggests that if a war is not winnable, it should not be fought. This is pure utilitarianism. Unquestionably many, Winston Churchill or Nelson Mandela for example, would argue that there are causes worth fighting for even if the probability of victory seems to be very unlikely. Similarly, the admonition to resort to war only in the last resort is equally practical. Of course in its extreme form, should leaders really not employ force until the very last, the enemy will most likely be at the gates. In reality, last resort is a judgment call made by politicians about the costs and benefits of action at any given time, and therefore it is a go-ahead and appropriate.

Comparative justice is the concept that one group is more right than the other. Both groups have their own rights and wrongs but one group’s injustice or suffering will overshadow the others. One advantage identifying the injustice is it “requires individuals to state clearly the theory of justice on which they are basing their cases for just cause (Holliday, 566).” For example, al Qaeda attacked the US on September 11, 2001. Thousands of US lives were lost, property was damaged and they attacked the US on their soil. But al Qaeda’s lost of lives was minimum, none of their property was damaged and they were not attacked because they attacked the US. The US had been violated. The injustice was identified and the US was more right than al Qaeda to wage war against them. The Right Intention concept is based on having the correct motives to declare war. Intentions such as, to gain dominance or wealth should not be justification to wage war. Other examples that do not meet proper standards are if “an agency that met all the other criteria but engaged in military activities as a means of, say, running an extortion racket could not be allowed just war status. Perhaps more pertinently, the government of a state that made war on a pretext, such as toppling another government it happened not to like, or boosting its own domestic political standing, could not be said to have just cause (Holliday, 568).” To wage a just war intentions have to be objective and right. Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition," deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition," deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. “The concept of ‘just wars’ has its origins in classical and theological philosophy and was explicit in the Christian ethics of Saint Augustine. Present-day arguments still rely on the seven main principles of just war theories” (Learning, 2002) According to Brian Orend (2008), war is a phenomenon, which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). Classical war is international war, a war between different states, like the two World Wars. But just as frequent is war within a state between rival groups or communities, like the American Civil War. Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations, might also be considered ‘political communities,’ in that they are associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands. War is violent and controversial by nature. Some think that war and the taking of lives is never justified, while others think that there can be and is just cause for war. If war is the only answer, is there a fair way to wage war? What are our responsibilities when we go to war? Probability of Success: Determining whether a cause is just includes a practical determination of its likelihood of success. In the Global War on Terrorism, there was never any serious concern that the US military would be challenged, either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The leaders and generals of the technologically advanced and highly trained US military felt certain that prior to any military force, in either region, would the likelihood of success be threatened. The US had previous experience fighting in Iraq during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign where they succeeded in defeating the Iraqi forces with little effort. In the Catholic Church, four conditions must be met in order to determine a just war. One of which, there must be serious prospect of success. A question might be asked, “Who determines whether the war was a success?” In the current war on terror, I think that the successful outcome would be the destruction of the terrorist networks around the world and the ceasing of attacks by terrorist groups. In all wars waged, leaders should have already determined the “success” criteria prior to engaging the enemy. Proportionality of ends mean that the overall damage caused by waging war must not exceed the original injury suffered. Unforeseen factors and unintended consequences are war's second nature. The obligation to judge the overall proportionality of waging war emphasizes the requirement for thoroughgoing critical intelligence and good faith analysis. When we maximize good outcomes and minimize damage, we help bring about a substantiate end of peace Simpson (2007). According to Daniel Bell (2005), the final criterion holds that the means used in a war’s prosecution must be Proportional to the Ends. Any intended destruction inflicted on the enemy must serve the stated ends of the just cause. You cannot destroy an enemy battalion simply because you have the capability to do so or because you see a postwar advantage in further weakening the enemy. In other words, this criterion prohibits "overkill," force that is disproportionate to the war’s just purpose.

War is a terrible thing, made more so by the evolution of the gears of war and the level by which nations can inflict suffering onto each other. However, while most nations and citizens of these nations which only for peace and security, others harbor ill toward all, and wish to see them trodden under the heel of oppressive regimes. When these individuals and nations willingly project fear and terror onto their neighbors, there must be recourse. That recourse is the Just War. When executed within the restraints of the Just War theory and measured carefully, undue suffering is prevented and unjust individuals punished.

References 1. Bell, Daniel, JR. (2005). Implications of Just War Theory. The Christian Century, pp. 26-33. 2. Brook, Yaron, & Epstein, Alex (2006). “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense. The Objective Standard, 1, No. 1, Retrieved March 27, 2009, from “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense.

3. Holliday, I. (2002). When is a cause just? Review of International Studies. 28, (3), 557-576. Retrieved from ProQuest (14108104010)

4. Learning, Jennifer (2002).Was the Afghan conflict a just war? An analysis of the "just war" theory. British Medical Journal. 324, 353-355. 5. Orend, Brian, "War". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/ 6. Patterson, E. D. (2004) "Just War on Terror? Reconceptualizing Just War theory in the 21st Century" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Marriott Hotel, Portland, Oregon Online . 2009-02-06 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p87872_index.html

7. Rosenstand, Nina (2006). The moral of the story: an introduction to ethics. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

8. Simpson, Gary (2007). War, Peace, and God: Rethinking the Just-war Tradition. New York, Augsburg Fortress.